The New 2007 US News Top Colleges

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
101

<p>
[quote]
And how about all those you want to reject in the first place? I'm not saying you're wrong in wanting to do it, or that I disagree (i'm not sure), but is it not that same?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The big difference is that I want to reject those students who aren't going to graduate anyway. These people are actually made worse off by going to Berkeley. For example, I know several people who flunked out of Berkeley, and each of them to a man has said that they would have been better off if they had never went to Berkeley in the first place. Who are you really helping when you admit people who aren't going to graduate?</p>

<p>In the case of the impacted majors, I have no problem with those majors not allowing in people who can't get a 2.0 in the prereqs, as if you can't get a 2.0, you're probably not going to complete the major. But we are far beyond that point. We have people getting above 3.0+'s (and in the case of Haas, CS and EECS, GPA's above 3.5) and STILL not being allowed into the major. Come on, if some people who have grades that are close enough to be able to graduate with distinction are still not being allowed into the major they want, guys, we're not in good shape here. People talk about expanding academic opportunity and resources for students, so what about expanding the availability of majors to people who seem to be doing pretty well in the prereqs? </p>

<p>
[quote]
establishing a program that not only creates a sort of caste at the school (which offends many people, it seems) </p>

<p>As far as I can tell, this is really why it has not been done.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it already has been done. The "school-within-a-school" characteristic of the Haas School or the School of Engineering is already a de-facto caste system. Plenty of people who want to get into these schools, including some with quite decent grades, are nevertheless denied entry. Isn't that basically a caste system by another name?</p>

102

<p>Ah, but I think the problem in the minds of some is that Haas provides a specialized curriculum that you can ONLY get at Haas. An honors college is the "regular" campus, but with perks and goodies only for a privileged class. Or so I heard.</p>

<p>I think it's silly. So don't shoot the messenger.</p>

103

<p>Oh, and dude....... are you a vampire? It's pretty late out there! Get some sleep. :p</p>

104

<p>


</p>

<p>so... what i get from what you're sayin is that ppl in general have a higher gpa among upper division classes than lower division classes (incl. those 'weeder' courses)?</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
so... what i get from what you're sayin is that ppl in general have a higher gpa among upper division classes than lower division classes (incl. those 'weeder' courses)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Partially, yes. I think even one of the college guides (I think Fiske's) alluded to how many majors actually get easier when you get into the upper division (hence, past the weeders). </p>

<p>Here's a snippet from a blog. It's about UCLA, but the same idea applies to Berkeley.</p>

<p>"Why Do You Keep Talking About "Harder As You Move Up?"
Amazingly, many majors get EASIER as you move up. This is because once you get through the weeder, they give you a break and the workload is only as hard as an "average" class. Certain majors aren't so lucky."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And here are some snippets about weeders in general.</p>

<p>"Is There REALLY A Curve?
You might have heard about this. I remember in my high school, curves were a myth. No such thing there. However, in college, yes, they are reality. Don't rely on them to save you. They are NOT THERE TO GIVE OUT A's. They are there to give out C's. Most classes are curved so that the average grade is a C+. This means if the average grade was a 50% (F), the professor may curve it to make the average grade 75% (C). I stress MAY. Impacted courses (high demand) such as chemistry and computer science will fail kids left and right and rarely have generous curves. Also, professors will curve some classes only to a C- or sometimes all the way up to a A-. It really depends on the professor and subject, and whether or not the course is a weeder.</p>

<p>Weeder?? What's That?
At UCLA there is something called a "weeder" class. "Impacted" courses (courses that have strict guidlines about adding or dropping them due to their high demand) are often "weeders." Most majors have at least one weeder course. Many have more than one (called "weeder series"). A weeder is a course that is designed to flunk out kids who aren't good enough for the major, thus "weeding" them out. FEAR THEM. You're at a school with the best and the brightest... and these courses are designed to flunk a big chunk of them out, of course not on an official level. Most of the time you won't know your class is a weeder until you go to UCLA for a while and you hear the rumor. I will do my best to inform you of what classes you may take as an incoming freshman that may be weeders. UCLA is a pre-med school... remember that. Anything here that is pre-med is *<strong><em>ING HARD. All of the chem courses are considered weeders. Computer science and engineering in general is considered one giant weeder. No, they do not get easier as you move up; in fact, they get really *</em></strong>ing hard. To illustrate, I have a friend who is a graduating senior, Electrical Engineer, I quote him saying, "A's? What is an A? I thought it went from F to C-." It's his last quarter here and yet at least once a week he won't come back from studying until four or five in the morning... and yet it's not midterm or finals season.</p>

<p>Back to Weeders...
I once took a weeder course in North campus (largely considered the "easier" side of campus). It is the weeder for the communications major (Comm 10). However, because this is an introductory weeder (anybody can take it), it is considered by many as North campus' hardest class. I didn't know this and I took it as an incoming frosh. I was quite scared. The material is ****ing common sense; you get a ton of it. I had 13 pages of single space, font 10 notes covering only HALF of the course (this is back when I was a good student and took notes). I was supposed to memorize the entire list including all the categories and how the list was arranged by them. And I did. Fearing it yet? My friend told me about his chem midterm... the average grade was a 16%.. No, they didn't fail the whole class; I'm sure they curved it so only half the kids failed. My freshman year, I met this friend of mine who was crying because she got an 76% on her math midterm. I told her that she should be glad she passed, she told me, "the average grade was 93%, the curve fails me." Weeders can have curves, as these three examples show... but only to make sure some people pass... and some fail. Famous weeders are courses like: Communications 10, Life Scienes 1 (and 2 & 3), Chemistry 14a (and all the subsequent ones get only harder), English 10a (OMG that class was hard), CS33, etc. Oh, and if you're wondering, my friend ended up getting a C- in her math class after studying her butt off. Lucky her!!!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>However, the other aspect of it is that some freshman-admits just do poorly as soon as they come in. They're either immature, or lazy, or not particularly bright, and/or the admissions office made a mistake in admitting them, etc. The weeders are primarily designed to eliminate students like that, and they certainly do a good job of it. {However, in many instances, I think it's a case of killing a fly with a nuclear missile, but I digress.} But no student is ever expelled immediately. You are first part on academic probation, which will last for at least one semester, maybe more, before you are finally officially expelled. So during those semesters of probation, you are an officially enrolled student with a terrible GPA, and your bad grades will be factored into the overall GPA average of all of the freshman-admits, hence dragging that average down. When the school finally expels you, that doesn't really solve the problem either because there will be another batch of students right behind you that is being put on probation.</p>

<p>Now obviously there are bad students who go to CC's too. The difference is that obviously most of those bad students aren't able to amass the CC grades necessary to transfer to Berkeley (heck, some of them don't even graduate from CC at all). But surely some must slip by and get into Berkeley. And when they do, they get to skip over many, and in some cases, all of Berkeley's weeders. </p>

<p>The point is, weeders change the entire calculation. What the OSR should have done is take the GPA's of the transfer students and compare that to the POST-WEEDER grades of the freshman-admits, as well as not count the GPA's of those freshman-admits who never made it past the weeders anyway. The fact that the OSR didn't do this either means that they don't know about the notion of weeders (which I find hard to believe), or that they are deliberately trying to lie with statistics by pretending that the two sets of data they have are comparable when in fact they are not. While I obviously can't prove this, I strongly suspect that a certain political agenda exists within the Berkeley bureaucracy to make the transfer students look good. </p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. I am not 'blaming' the transfer students. They didn't do anything wrong. What I am saying is that if the transfer students really are as good as Berkeley says they are, then clean data should be freely available to support that contention. The OSR shouldn't have to rely on subterfuge and misdirection to convince people that the transfer students are good. I don't know if the OSR is engaging in that, but the methodology they have chosen to use to support their case is certainly very sketchy.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
Ah, but I think the problem in the minds of some is that Haas provides a specialized curriculum that you can ONLY get at Haas. An honors college is the "regular" campus, but with perks and goodies only for a privileged class. Or so I heard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am well aware of what the prevailing mentality is. But I think we can agree that what you have pointed out is a distinction without a difference. My honors college would provide perks and goodies only for a privileged class. Haas right now provides perks and goodies only for a privileged class. For example, Haas provides priority access to Haas classes to Haas students. Haas has its own career services office. Haas has its own student clubs available only to Haas students. So, really, how is that any different from my idea of an honors college?</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
I would say that, if anything, it is my detractors that want to have their cake and eat it too. They want Berkeley to rise in the rankings. But they're not willing to countenance the steps needed to do so. Like increasing selectivity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, anyone that doesn't want Berkeley to be more selective and wants Berkeley's ranking higher fits in that category. Looking back at your post I realize you perhaps weren't attacking the "wall" but just mentioning it.</p>

<p>And yet, it does seem contradictory in purpose to make Berkeley more selective and to make the majors completely open. At one point or another we're excluding students from what they want--whether in admission to the school or admission to the major--so somewhere you're screwing people. To use your own type of example, go ask a student that was rejected (after increasing selectivity) whether he likes that Berkeley was made more selective, and s/he'll say no. That doesn't mean it wouldn't make Berkeley's students better and class sizes smaller and faculty:student ratio larger (all of which affect ranking). But still, that student won't like it.</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
And yet, it does seem contradictory in purpose to make Berkeley more selective and to make the majors completely open. At one point or another we're excluding students from what they want--whether in admission to the school or admission to the major--so somewhere you're screwing people. To use your own type of example, go ask a student that was rejected (after increasing selectivity) whether he likes that Berkeley was made more selective, and s/he'll say no. That doesn't mean it wouldn't make Berkeley's students better and class sizes smaller and faculty:student ratio larger (all of which affect ranking). But still, that student won't like it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, the student won't like it, at least temporarily. But I believe I am saving that student from a far worse fate - which is to prevent him from flunking out entirely. Like I said, the people who I would definitely not admit are the people who aren't going to graduate anyway. Why even admit students who aren't going to graduate? It doesn't help the school, and maybe more importantly, it also doesn't help the student. I think it's safe to say that people go to school not just because it's "fun" to be at school. They go there to get a degree. Who really wants to drop out? Who really wants to have their academic record peppered with bad grades? Who wants this? </p>

<p>{Now it is true that people drop out for reasons other than flunking out. For example, some students run out of money. But that's really a distinction without a difference, because, after all, who really wants to go to Berkeley or any school and not get a degree, regardless of the reason? I think it would be better for everybody if that student had never come. After all, if you're not going to get a degree, then frankly, why are you going there?} </p>

<p>Like I said, I know a number of people who flunked out of Berkeley, and they have all said to a man that they would have better off if they had never gone to Berkeley at all, including, if necessary, not ever having been admitted in the first place. They feel that their Berkeley experience has actually made them WORSE off. So while yes, I agree that these students may not have liked not being admitted, it's better than the current situation. It's better to never go to a school at all, then to go to that school and flunk out. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Berkeley right now rejects 75% of its freshman applicants. Hence, Berkeley does something to the vast majority of its applicants that they don't like. In addition, about 15% of its undergrads never graduate. Hence, here is another set of students who encounter something they don't like (as I don't think anybody likes not graduating). I believe that the second criteria is more painful than the first - in that it is less painful to not get admitted to a school at all, than to go there and not graduate. Hence, I am willing to trade the first category for the second. Let's only admit those students who are actually going to graduate. </p>

<p>You can also look at the issue from a public policy issue. Something like 90% of Berkeley undergrads are state residents and hence getting a state subsidy. The state (and by extension, the taxpayers) spend a lot of money on this subsidy. We're not spending tax dollars just to shovel people into Berkeley. The point is to actually have them earn degrees. This is not a game here. This is serious business. We're not paying taxes so that some students will drop out/flunk out. Do you think the taxpayers enjoy subsidizing students who won't graduate? I think the taxpayers would ask what I am asking - if the student isn't going to graduate from Berkeley, then why even admit him to Berkeley? The student should be going to some other school from which he actually will graduate.</p>

109

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the problem is that you will inevitably end up lowering minority enrollments the most... and that's Pandora's Box with a claymore attached just for good measure. </p>

<p>While I do agree that we need to cut out a number of people who aren't fit for Cal, we also need to look at the source of the problem to begin with. But that's an entirely different conversation...</p>

110

<p>I see the merit in your methodology, but at the same time, I don't feel the best solution is to push students away from Berkeley. If they're going to flunk out of Berkeley, who's to say they won't flunk out of any college? It takes a serious lack of effort or lack of mental ability to flunk out of college, and few people are lacking so much in mental ability.</p>

<p>I think it would best for the students not for Berkeley to not admit them, but for Berkeley to make efforts to prevent them from failing classes and dropping out. For example, force students that have done poorly on Midterm I to have a one-to-one with the professor or a GSI to discuss their performance, how they might improve, what they didn't understand, etc. Perhaps this is impractical on a large scale, but some type of method to get poor students out of their rut would be the best solution, not simply excluding them entirely.</p>

<p>Further, in the end it is the choice of the student where to attend. If they choose Berkeley and fail courses and drop out, it is not Berkeley's fault--certainly we have plenty of evidence that it is quite common for students to come here and not fail courses and not drop out. Students must take some responsibility for themselves. I do believe Berkeley could to a better job helping them do so, but Berkeley shouldn't become more selective simply because we have 15% dropouts. We should make efforts to help those 15% so they don't drop out.</p>

111

<p>Or just inflate the grades a little.</p>

<p>The "C" is now basically Stanford's failing grade.</p>

112

<p>eudean,</p>

<p>You do realize that the level of difficulty at Cal is quite different from say...Cal STATE, right? I mean, some people ought to be at somewhat less competitive schools.</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
I am well aware of what the prevailing mentality is. But I think we can agree that what you have pointed out is a distinction without a difference. My honors college would provide perks and goodies only for a privileged class. Haas right now provides perks and goodies only for a privileged class. For example, Haas provides priority access to Haas classes to Haas students. Haas has its own career services office. Haas has its own student clubs available only to Haas students. So, really, how is that any different from my idea of an honors college?

[/quote]

Haas does have priority access to Haas classes, but it is the same as many majors--majors get priority registration to major classes.</p>

<p>The clubs are not Haas exclusive, besides the Haas student government.</p>

<p>Also, unfortunately, Haas students do not have access to Haas's career center: only MBAs get that. Haas undergrads have the same career center as every other undergraduate--though admittedly they do get the benefit of the Haas name.</p>

<p>It doesn't say that it isn't a privileged group though--just in more subtle ways. Speakers come into Haas classes, and during various periods around the building, company and industry officals come around to mix and mingle with Haas students, professors introduce students to company managment...</p>

<p>Though it is arguable that a student who takes lots of Haas classes and hangs around the Haas building all the time can gain the same benefits, except for the last (unless you make good friends with a professor, which would give the same effect).</p>

<p>Despite this, Berkeley does not give concrete perks to Haas or any other major. Regents and Chancellors would be the only exception, though their benefits are relatively minor compared to what an honors college gives. (Alumni scholars as well, but it is technically through a different organization than the Berkeley administration itself)</p>

<p>I'm not arguing one way or another, simply pointing things out.</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
If they're going to flunk out of Berkeley, who's to say they won't flunk out of any college?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then ideally, no college should accept them. Or at least no public college. If a person isn't going to graduate from any college, then we shouldn't waste state tax dollars on trying to get the person to graduate. Like I said, this is not a game here. We're not spending taxpayer money willy-nilly on just bringing students in to a university, only to throw them right back out. The point of spending tax dollars on subsidies is to educate people who actually have the wherewithal to graduate from a certain university People should therefore be optimally placed at a university from which they will actually graduate. Berkeley is the most difficult public school in the state, and arguably the country. We should therefore be subsidizing to go to Berkeley only those students who are actually able to graduate from Berkeley. Those students who don't have that ability should go to some other school from which they actually can graduate.</p>

<p>I know that may sound cruel, but like I said, not admitting somebody to Berkeley is better than bringing them in and then tossing them right back out. As my friend once said, it's better to graduate from San Jose State than flunk out of Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think it would best for the students not for Berkeley to not admit them, but for Berkeley to make efforts to prevent them from failing classes and dropping out. For example, force students that have done poorly on Midterm I to have a one-to-one with the professor or a GSI to discuss their performance, how they might improve, what they didn't understand, etc. Perhaps this is impractical on a large scale, but some type of method to get poor students out of their rut would be the best solution, not simply excluding them entirely.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That would be a nice idea, and I could certainly support trying this, but I don't think it would be highly effective, simply because there really are a lot of students that just won't respond. The sad truth is that a lot of students are simply not ready for college, and specifically for the responsibilities of college life. They don't know how to manage their time. They don't know how to live by themselves. They're not interested in studying. Some of them get caught up in the drinking and drugs lifestyle that is rather prevalent around campus. </p>

<p>Again, take my friend - the one who flunked out and ended up working for FedEx. He freely admits that he simply wasn't ready for college life. He wasn't mature. For example, one of the first problems he had was that he never had a girlfriend in high school, and he fell in love at Berkeley to a bad girl who cheated on him, and he wasn't ready for the psychological consequences of that. He just didn't want to do anything productive after that, he just wanted to mope. But of course if you're in EECS (as he was), you can't exactly be moping or you'll flunk out. </p>

<p>But the point is, he just wasn't ready for the pressures of Berkeley. Yes, he had many good talkings-to by deans and profs, but the fact is, he was a psychological mess and nobody could reach him. He basically would have been better off had he simply not gone to Berkeley at all. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Further, in the end it is the choice of the student where to attend.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, this is where we disagree. It is not true. It is not the 'choice' of students about where to attend. Like I said, Berkeley only admits 25% of its applicants. Therefore 75% of them were not given a choice about going to Berkeley. So I don't see why we couldn't raise that to an even higher percentage, and specifically not admit those students who aren't going to graduate anyway. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that nobody has the "right" to attend Berkeley. To attend Berkeley, you first have to get admitted and nobody has automatic admission. You have to meet whatever criteria Berkeley sets for admission, which is by its nature an arbitrary criteria. </p>

<p>
[quote]
but Berkeley shouldn't become more selective simply because we have 15% dropouts. We should make efforts to help those 15% so they don't drop out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Eudean, I don't see why you object to the concept of selectivity. Again, Berkeley is already the most selective public school in the state, and probably the country. Certainly nobody is advocating that Berkeley adopt open admissions. Some students really can't handle the work and really would be better off at another school. </p>

<p>Look at it this way. Flunkouts are obviously the biggest problem, But even if you do grauate from Berkeley, that doesn't mean that Berkeley was the best choice. For example, I wold say that if you barely graduate from Berkeley, i.e. getting a GPA around a 2.0, you probably didn't have a very enjoyable time and you probably would have enjoyed things more at another school. </p>

<p>In fact, I know a guy who barely graduated from Berkeley with something like a 2.05. To him, the process was extremely painful. because he didn't know, until he got his final grades in his final semester, whether he was even going to graduate. For example, he got a bunch of C's in his final semester. If just a few of them were C-'s or D's, he would have ended up with below a 2.0, which would mean that he wouldn't have graduated. Imagine that kind of stress of spending all of your years at Berkeley, especially your senior year, doing all that work, and still not even knowing whether you would actually graduate. He couldn't even do any serious senior-year job recruiting, because in the back of his mind he was afraid of accepting a job offer, and then only later finding out that he didn't even graduate. And of course any grad school plans are clearly down the toilet. You're not going to any grad school with a 2.05 GPA. Nor did he have the chance to develop any meaningful work experience, as he was spending all his time studying in order to avoid flunking out. He's another guy who freely admits that he would have been better off going to a different, easier school. </p>

<p>Hence, I think that going to UCDavis or San Jose State and getting decent grades is arguably better than barely graduating from Berkeley. If he had gone elsewhere, he might have had an enjoyable experience. As it happened he endured what he calls '4 years of hell'. </p>

<p>The worst aspect of the whole ordeal is that if you're doing badly at Berkeley, you can't easily transfer to another good school. That's because no decent school wants to admit a transfer student who is doing poorly at his original school. So if you're on academic probation, or even if you're barely passing at Berkeley, you're basically stuck at Berkeley. No other school wants you. So your only realistic choice is to stay at Berkeley and try to graduate, which you might not do. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Haas does have priority access to Haas classes, but it is the same as many majors--majors get priority registration to major classes.</p>

<p>The clubs are not Haas exclusive, besides the Haas student government.</p>

<p>Also, unfortunately, Haas students do not have access to Haas's career center: only MBAs get that. Haas undergrads have the same career center as every other undergraduate--though admittedly they do get the benefit of the Haas name.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, yes. It is true that the 'wall' is somewhat permeable. But the fact remains that Haas is in many ways a 'de-facto' honors college. Not everybody who wants to go to Haas actually gets in, not everybody who wants to take Haas classes gets to take them, not everybody who wants to take advantage of Haas opportunities gets access to them. That's the point I'm making.</p>

115

<p>what exactly do you study at MIT that gives you the amount of free time to post 1,000 word replies? </p>

<p>seriously, i'm just wondering.</p>

116

<p>
[quote]
what exactly do you study at MIT that gives you the amount of free time to post 1,000 word replies?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not at MIT.</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
Or just inflate the grades a little.</p>

<p>The "C" is now basically Stanford's failing grade.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, the reason why Berkeley can't do that (or doesn't want to do that) is simple - because there really are some Berkeley students who are just not very good. They either can't or don't want to do the work. So Berkeley uses low grades, and especially weeders, to boot them out. It's all part of the silly time-wasting game of bringing in students and then tossing them right back out. I am of the opinion that it is far more efficient to just not bring in these students in the first place. Seriously, what is the point of bringing these students in only to toss them right back out? </p>

<p>One problem that i see is the problem of 'collateral damage'. Because some students are bad, Berkeley has to put everybody through the weeders. That's basically punishing the group for the actions of a few. If Berkeley simply didn't admit those bad students, then Berkeley could ease up on the weeders.</p>

118

<p>
[quote]
Those students who don't have that ability should go to some other school from which they actually can graduate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We're not picking students which we know can't graduate. The students we pick we <em>think</em> will graduate (that else makes sense?). We can't know in advance. Now, if we took students with 500s on their SATs and 2.0 high school GPAs, then I would agree we should become more selective.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know that may sound cruel, but like I said, not admitting somebody to Berkeley is better than bringing them in and then tossing them right back out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But this isn't Berkeley's fault. It is the student's. He or she must make a choice as to which college to attend and how hard to work. If s/he fails, it was not Berkeley's fault (or at least not nearly as much as it was the fault of the student). Berkeley doesn't encourage poor students to come, fail, and drop out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But the point is, he just wasn't ready for the pressures of Berkeley. Yes, he had many good talkings-to by deans and profs, but the fact is, he was a psychological mess and nobody could reach him. He basically would have been better off had he simply not gone to Berkeley at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If his application demonstrated he was too intellectually immature for college, then we should've rejected him. Things like being emotionally fragile tend not to show up in typical applications, though (I'd imagine, at least). I'm guessing it simply didn't show up. I agree, if we can spot cases, we should eliminate them. I'm sure that's what we do, because it isn't in anybody's best interests to have dropouts.</p>

<p>
[quote]
See, this is where we disagree. It is not true. It is not the 'choice' of students about where to attend. Like I said, Berkeley only admits 25% of its applicants. Therefore 75% of them were not given a choice about going to Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I meant that in the sense that if they are accepted to Berkeley, they have a choice of whether to attend or not. Berkeley tries to filter students out they don't feel will fit at Berkeley, and students will naturally try not to attend a school where they won't fit in (whether intellectually, socially, politically, financially, or whatever).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Eudean, I don't see why you object to the concept of selectivity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not. If I were, I would be against Berkeley's current practice of being, well, selective. I'm against becoming more selective when I don't see a strong reason to do so.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Some students really can't handle the work and really would be better off at another school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It would be lovely if we could tell definitively which students fall into this category. A college application can only fit so much information. We could certainly reduce our number of dropouts by picking better applicants, but wouldn't you agree our applicant pool is already pretty good? Is a 1300-1400 SAT score (in the old system) and top 10% of the class type of student not expected to be able to handle Berkeley? I know lots that do just fine. I know some won't, but should we exclude them all in order to weed those ones out?</p>

<p>Look, if you come up with a way to determine with some conclusiveness (perhaps 70-80% accuracy) that a student would drop out of Berkeley, I would completely agree we should filter based on that metric. I just don't know if such a metric exists beyond what we already filter for. Becoming "more selective" will only help the problem to a certain extent.</p>

<p>Directly targeting poor students who appear likely to drop out once they're here--which is the only time we can truly determine whether a student will be likely to fail and drop out--is the better solution. We try to pre-filter, but because we can't catch all cases and still want to have a large undergraduate class, we can make the effort once they're here.</p>

119

<p>eudean,</p>

<p>I had a coworker at UCLA who had scored less than 1000 on the SAT, hadn't taken any math past algebra 2, and was left hanging by the administration until he flunked out.</p>

<p>I'm not talking about the borderline cases. I'm talking about the OBVIOUS cases, where some sob story or desire to let in someone because of an ethnic/cultural reason leads to an admission to someone who more than likely would be better served by a less strenuous experience.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are outliers in cases like this. But there are many who are admitted for political reasons that should be given a chance to succeed in an environment that would better suit them. Perhaps that's condescending, patronizing, or supercilious on my part, but I'd rather see that the people getting in are being given what they deserve.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
If his application demonstrated he was too intellectually immature for college, then we should've rejected him. Things like being emotionally fragile tend not to show up in typical applications, though (I'd imagine, at least). I'm guessing it simply didn't show up. I agree, if we can spot cases, we should eliminate them. I'm sure that's what we do, because it isn't in anybody's best interests to have dropouts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just because someone goes through an emotional crisis during their teen years, Berkeley shouldn't accept him or her? Au contraire! Research has shown that people who go through an emotional crisis during their teens are the ones who are MOST likely to NOT have an emotional crisis in college.</p>

<p>Besides, "emotionally fragile" people oftentimes end up being outstanding creative individuals. I would say it's in Berkeley's interest to count such people among its alumni. If you're on the admcom and you have the opportunity to admit someone who shows clear signs of becoming the next Joan Didion as opposed to someone who shows clear signs of becoming just another faceless surgeon, you're going to pick the Didion. Or at least I would.</p>